Savage Music Technology 2012

.
DRIVING FORWARD
TECHNOLOGYS
IMPRINT ON MUSIC
EDUCATION
,o.1u. s.v.ci
It is always wise to look ahead, but dim cult to look further
than you can see.
This quotation from Winston Churchill is apposite for a chapter that seeks to draw
together what has preceded it, amplify its themes, and use them to anticipate future
dispositions towards the application of music technology in education settings. In
many educational contexts around the world the use of music technologies has
increased rapidly. As the previous chapters within this part of the handbook have
considered, there have been significant pieces of research related to curriculum
design, teacher pedagogy, and ways of learning with technology. Many of these
have impacted on the work of music educators in positive ways. But this is not
a time for self-congratulation or passive reflection. Outside the often-closeted
world of education, technological developments continue to move forwards rap-
idly. Hardly a week goes by without comment in the international press about a
new technological innovation or application related to the production, reception,
or consumption of music in one form or another.
Recently, issues such as the establishment of an agency for navigating online
copyright issues for film and musical content has been discussed (Fitzsimmons,
:oo), new systems to help train people to use prosthetic limbs using Guitar Hero (a
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 04/30/12, NEWGEN
33_McPherson_V2_Chapter_5.5.indd 492 4/30/2012 6:53:16 PM
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io ,
music video game) have been developed (Graham, :oo), and iPhone, iPod Touch,
and iPad owners have seen the development of a plethora of applications to play vir-
tual pianos, drums, and guitars (Apple, :oo). As developments in technology move
relentlessly forwards, there are the twin dangers facing educators: moving too quickly
or too slowly. Either way, disjunctions between the pedagogy and practice of music
education have been noted, in school-based education (Savage, :oo, p.:o,; Cain,
:oo, p. ::,; Ofsted, :oo, p. ,) and higher education (Draper, :oo8, p. :,,; Jenkins
et al., :oo,, p. ::). Now, more than ever, music educators need to be maintain their
focus on what constitutes effective teaching and learning with music technology. If,
in Churchills words, it is wise to look ahead but difficult to look further than one
can see, what methods or tools could we utilize to help us do this more effectively?
Kvv Pn:Nc:v:vs
Establishing principles for educational change is a tricky and problematic task. In the
majority of this chapter we will be looking ahead at the challenges we may face, using
key principles drawn from a piece of educational research. Before we do that, we will
briefly look backward and reflect on how we have got to where we are today.
Loox:No Bncxwnnu
Technology has permeated every aspect of our musical lives in the early twenty-
first century. They provide us with new opportunities to listen to music, to pro-
duce, share, and perform musical ideas together, and to teach and learn from
one another. The use of technology within music education has challenged and
reshaped views about the principles and purposes of music teaching and learning.
As an example, Reimers question about the importance of musical performance
as a central role in a music education remains as important today as it did when it
was first posed (Reimer, :; Savage, :oo,a). The precise skills, embodied knowl-
edge, or understanding that the activity of musical performance actually facilitates
is worth debating.Within the United Kingdom this is something that is currently
receiving considerable attention, as approaches to whole-class instrumental teach-
ing, such as Wider Opportunities, are embedded across the country. The perceived
benefits of this on students self-esteem and wider academic studies are easily writ-
ten about in evaluative studies (FMS, :o:o) but perhaps less easy to substantiate,
due to a lack of longitudinal studies in these areas (Savage, :o:oa).
More generally, technology leaves its mark on our work and in our minds; its
imprint becomes firmly embedded on our pedagogies, implicating our thinking
in implicit and explicit ways. Once there, it is hard to remove, and the nature of
1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
our responses to it have shaped the nature of music education to this point in time.
Some readers may feel that their work has escaped the technological imprint up
to this point. I would gently like to question this assumption. Many young peoples
experience of music outside the formal learning context is technologically rich and
varied. Musical learning in the real world, outside the formality of schools and
classrooms, is often portrayed as transparent and boundless when compared to the
formal classroom. Without the prevailing subject cultures and unhelpful categori-
zations of knowledge and pedagogy that dominate our schools, in the real world
learners can navigate their way seamlessly among and between subject knowledge
that, the argument goes, they might find more difficult to achieve in a more formal
setting. Of course, such bald parallels are based on false assumptions and a narrow
understanding of what happens within both contexts. But the intelligent use and
application of music technologies has provided us with an opportunity to chal-
lenge our way of thinking about subjects, curricula, teaching, and learning. Has
this discourse really passed teachers by? To what extent has their work successfully
responded to the technologys imprint on the musical lives of their students?
The challenge of responding positively to this imprint on our work is not easy.
There are many strong forces that militate against it. One of the restraining elements
is a strong, traditional view of music within a particular subject culture. For Goodson
and Mangen, a subject culture (Goodson & Mangen, :8, p.::o) isan identifiable
structure which is visibly expressed through classroom organization and pedagogi-
cal styles. For many teachers, the subject culture and its associatedways of being
(Van Manen, :,,, p. :o,) define their teaching practice at a fundamental level.
Within the secondary education context, the opportunity to develop ones subject
and teach others about it is high up the list of most teachers job satisfaction (Spear,
Gould, & Lea, :ooo, p. ,:). Within initial teacher education, subject knowledge (i.e.,
the actual knowledge of the subject but also, implicitly, the way that the subject
is presented and traditionally taught) is a strong, formative force on the beginner
teacher. It can consolidate and congeal approaches to teaching and learning if an
uncritical stance is allowed to develop. Young teachers need to cultivate a deliberate
sense ofplayful engagement with their formative subject culture. The critical and
reflective teacher of music has stood a better chance of responding positively to the
technological imprint when they have been able to reconceptualize musics subject
culture to accommodate new technology mediated musical practices.
As we change our focus and begin to look forward, the following key principles
will give the reader a stronger chance of engaging in a constructive way to future
technological developments within music education.
Loox:No Fonwnnus
Looking forwards, what key principles could underpin our work in developing the
use of music technology as a tool for teaching and learning? Futures research in
education provides us with some starting points. One of the most extensive pieces
of research into the future of education and technology was recently completed in
the United Kingdom. Beyond Current Horizons was a two-year project funded by
the Department for Children, Schools and Families which drew together over :oo
academics from disciplines as diverse as computer science, demography, psychol-
ogy, and sociology of childhood, and involved contributions from over :,o other
organizations and individuals from industry, practice, policy, and research. The
aim of the Beyond Current Horizons research project was
to explore the potential futures for education that might emerge at the
intersection of social and technological change over the coming two decades. Its
purpose is to map out current and emerging socio-technical trends, the critical
uncertainties in our understanding of future socio-technical developments, and
the challenges or opportunities that such developments might offer to educators.
(DCSF & Futurelab, :oo, p. ,)
In order to assist its research methodology, the Beyond Current Horizons program
developed four principles that built on a review of the existing fields of futures
research and educational futures, theoretical gains from social studies of technol-
ogy, and insights from educational philosophy. These four principles provide a
useful starting point for our discussion with respect to the future of music tech-
nologies in education. Each will be briefly considered and applied.
:. Our aim today is to challenge assumptions rather than present definitive
predictions.
Researching the future cannot simply be a case of producing a set of predictions
of what will happen as though this were beyond the intervention of
individuals or societies. Nor can it simply be a case of discussing what we want
or will make happen, as though there were no prior contexts to shape our
actions. (Facer & Sandford, :o:o, p. ,o)
A key element of imagining future educational scenarios is about challenging
assumptions today and using these to ask questions about potential future models.
Facer, the program director, quotes Bell, who proposed that futures research can
best be understood as an attempt to explore the relationships between possible,
probable, and preferable futures. This involves asking what can or could be (the
possible), what is likely to be (the probable), and what ought to be (the preferable)?
(Bell, :,, p. ,,). But prior to seeking answers to these questions, the first task of
any exploration of the possible futures for music technology within education must
be to critique the assumption that there is an inevitable future to which we must
simply adapt or resist.
Within the context of our work as music educators, remember that any imagined
future curriculum models for music, or any new technologies that may be invented
or applied to our work, are similarly contextualized by assumptions, contexts, and
actions, the majority of which are known to us today. Bells questions in the above
paragraph are as relevant to proposed musical developments as they are to generic
models for the future uses of technology in education. Critiquing our assumptions,
our actions, our pedagogies as music educators today are vital first steps. Main-
taining a questioning and enquiring mindset should underpin all our work.
o 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
But there are a number of dangers here. Firstly, assuming that change will not
happen. This is nave. Technological change is apparent, obvious, and surrounds
us each day. Secondly, assuming that change will happen more quickly than it does.
This is equally unhelpful. The history of technology is littered with unfulfilled
assumptions and overly positivistic rhetoric. Many of these obscure and compli-
cate our thinking at a time when calm but critical thought is needed.
:. The future of music education is not determined solely by its technologies.
The twin dangers of assuming too much or too little are evident if one looks back
at the impact of technology on different fields. Although our history is saturated by
stories of unfulfilled visions (e.g., a paperless world), it is also dominated by stories
of visions being realized more quickly than anticipated (e.g., the human genome
project). Technological determinism in any form within music education is worth
avoiding as we seek to develop our pedagogy. Facer and Sandford comment that
the sociology of technology, actor network theory, socio-cultural psychology,
and post-structural critical theory, however, all make visible the complex
relationship between technological development and social change. Although
there are different positions on this spectrum, these perspectives imply an
understanding of social change as a co-production of technical, discursive and
social factors. (Facer & Sandford, :o:o, pp. ,o,,)
Within the field of music education it is worth dwelling on this notion of co-pro-
duction and the factors that it contains. Considering music education in isolation
from other educational, technical, and sociological dimensions will not be a helpful
approach. Whilst the discrete elements of music as a subject culture may be pos-
sible to define, their implications and connections with wider fields of knowledge,
including the socio-technological field, need to be acknowledged and strengthened
if change is to occur in a systematic and helpful way. There needs to be a firm
emphasis on music education with technology engaging with and relating to wider
educational theories and activities. Too narrow a focus on the technology itself will
not provide the answers.
,. Music education has a range of responsibilities that relate closely to broader
educational agendas. As music educators, where do our responsibilities lie? The
Beyond Current Horizons program conceptualized education as being respon-
sible for:
Qualifying learners to take on certain roles (requiring the development of
knowledge and competencies)
Socializing learners to participate in wider community, family, and social
contexts
Equipping learners to develop their own sense of selves, identity, and
agency (DCSF & Futurelab, :oo, p. :8)
These aims are very similar to other pieces of recent curriculum reform and
development, such as the recent implementation of the new Key Stage , (pupils
aged :::) National Curriculum within England (QCA, :oo,, p. ,). A detailed
exposition of the aims and purposes of music education can be found elsewhere
in this handbook. Here, the key point is simple. When one is thinking about the
future of music education and the development of new technologies within this, it
is important to consider how the broader changes both within and outside music
education might relate to these proposed changes and how these may lead us to
question and challenge our assumptions about the wider purposes of education
(see principle : above). Examples here might include how technology implicates
the processes of personal and social interaction within musical activities or how
creativity and imagination are developed within musical composition.
. Thinking about the future for music education with technology always requires
analyzing associated values, politics, and rhetorical devices. Conceptions or visions
of the future are powerful rhetorical devices (Facer & Sandford, :o:o, p. ,,). Within
the field of music education and technology, it is possible for individuals or groups
to use these devices to promote change for various reasons. Perhaps the most
obvious examples relate to commercial interests of music technology companies.
Whilst many companies may not have an explicit educational rationale underpin-
ning their work, many of them do sell their products into educational markets as
part of their wider vision. In this scenario, the rhetoric surrounding the value and
use of technological tools in contexts outside of music education are imported into
it. One only needs tovisit a small number of schools to see this happening. A recent
survey of technology in secondary schools across the United Kingdom (Savage,
:o:ob) found a prevalence of certain types of hardware and software tools that
were designed for uses outside the immediate context of education. This is not to
say that these tools cannot (and were not) successfully applied to their educational
contexts. Rather, the range of political, commercial, and operational values infused
in these technologies through the design and manufacturing process need to be
made explicit. They are not neutral. This rhetorical discourse should be made vis-
ible, and the consequences of it on the key processes of musical teaching and learn-
ing carefully mapped.
These four principles are particularly appropriate for this chapters focus on
preparing for future developments in music education with technology. It is to this
area that our attention will now turn.
Fc1cnv Avvnoncnvs 1o Tvncn:No nNu
LvnnN:No :N Mcs:c w:1n TvcnNo:oov
The principles discussed above are built around the requirement for a careful
exemplification of the origins and values underpinning music education with
technology. These pieces of technology will change in incredible ways over the next
:o years. Some of these we may be able to predict; others will take us all by
8 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
surprise. But the impact of these new technologies will be dependent upon the
social context, value frameworks, educational agendas, and pedagogies that
they are brought into and work alongside them. Future curriculum initiatives,
such as the development of cross-curricular approaches to teaching and learn-
ing, will make different demands on music teachers in their choice and use of
these technologies. We will explore these below. But it is vital that we maintain a
critical stance in relationship to these issues and do not succumb to false rhetoric.
Technologies do not hold all the answers to the potential educational challenges
that music educators will face. They are one part of a web of influences on their
work. Their use is mediated by other important and powerful factors that need
to be held within a careful balance. The relationship between new pedagogical
approaches that emerge alongside the use of these new technologies and the role of
the technology itself will be a delicate and fragile one that needs to be understood
and reflected on within the context of the activity itself. This reinforces the obser-
vation made by Lawrence Stenhouse that there is no curriculum development
without teacher development (Stenhouse, :8o, p. 8,). Teachers will by no means
be redundant in these future scenarios. Developing that reflective eye and ear
and being alert to the changing nature of their pedagogy will be key skills, what-
ever new technologies may emerge. Simply coercing music teachers towards cer-
tain predetermined positions for the use of music technologies in music education
is not the way forward.
With this in mind, I propose to consider four key possibilities or challenges
facing music education as new technologies emerge and are applied to processes of
teaching and learning. I do not present these as a prescriptive list. I am as uncertain
as the next music educator about what the future holds. Rather, I hope that through
presenting these issues in light of the key principles above that the reader will be
able to begin to thoughtfully anticipate potential changes in music education, and
begin to consider how his individual research or pedagogy will develop in light
of these changes. I do not present these in any order of importance (although the
reason for the order will become apparent as the chapter progresses).
Emvowvn:No Tnnu:No ZoNvs nNu
Rvuvv:N:No Scn)vc1 Cc:1cnvs
For many, the subject culture of music is where their musical identity has been
nurtured and developed. Subject cultures contain sets of values, definitions, and
interests (Jephcote & Davies, :oo,, p. ::o) that, although often hard to define, are
experienced by participants within that culture almost intuitively. These values
come to the fore when threatened or challenged. For example, evidence of dis-
rupting elements within a subject culture can be seen when insensitive approaches
to cross-curricular ways of working are imposed on teachers. In this scenario,
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io
differences between subject cultures lead to conflict and tension both within and
across subjects. It is no surprise, therefore, that this has often been cited as a rea-
son for the lack of cross-curricular development within the secondary curriculum
context (Cooper, :8,, p. :o8).
:
Researchers at the University of Bristol investigated how technology can medi-
ate between subject cultures. As a first step, they investigated four major dimen-
sions across which individual subject cultures might differ significantly in respect
oftheir relationship with technology. These were:
The sunk costs of information and communication technologies (ICT) :.
within the subject culture. This refers to the material and symbolic
investments teachers have consciously or unconsciously made in
conceptions of the content of the subject, its purpose, and how it should be
taught in respect of ICT.
The modes of learning that ICT might facilitate. :. This refers to the
characteristic processes, demonstrations, and outcomes of learning within
the subject culture. Equally taken for granted are what counts as success
in the subject, how it is achieved, and how it is known.
The relationship to wider contexts. ,. Subject cultures are differently situated
in terms of their wider contexts and how they relate to them. The most
important of these contexts are the curriculum requirements and the
subjects place in the pecking order of the school, both of which may
impact critically on their access to and use of ICT.
The relationship between technology, pedagogy, and curriculum content. .
(University of Bristol, :o:oa)
These dimensions share many points of similarity with the principles extracted
from the Beyond Current Horizons program. The contextualization of technol-
ogy within wider frameworks or within curriculum, pedagogy, and subject culture
is particularly noteworthy. It is worth exploring the musical implications of these
dimensions a little. Perhaps difficult and uncomfortable questions need to be asked.
In respect of sunk costs, how can we ensure that the future material and symbolic
investments we buy into with technology resound clearly with the notions of why
music education is important and of value for all young people? In respect of modes
of learning, is successful engagement in processes such as musical performance
or composition the same when technologies are involved? What are the potential
losses or gains within such a process? Is it important that all children learn to play
an instrument? What exactly is the different between a traditional instrument and
a digital instrument? In respect of issues surrounding pedagogy and curriculum
content, to what extent will new technologies take the focus away from the teacher
and encourage more informal, independent learning? Should this be encouraged?
The findings of the University of Bristol study are presented online through
groupings of materials produced by each Subject Design Team (University of
Bristol, :o:ob). Key findings from each team pointed to
,oo 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
the importance of the teacher and the ways in which technology is incorporated
into their pedagogy. This emphasises the importance of the ecological
setting of classrooms and how a mixture of teachers subject and pedagogical
understandings act as filters during planning, practice and reflection.
(Sutherland & John, :oo,, p. ::)
The role of the teacher was fundamental in incorporating technology within
the classroom. But this is not straightforward. John (:oo,) identifies a range of
powerful, historical forces that can mitigate against this:
Much of the current debate around the educational value and purpose of ICT
can be set within the generic (or pedagogic) modes that have a tendency
to functionalise education. This interpretation has led to a cultures in
tension explanation for the resistance of accepted subject sub-cultures to the
incorporation of ICT into their curricular and pedagogic processes. These
conflicting rationales have led to a number of explanations including subject
resistance (Finlayson & Perry, :,), techno-phobia (Selwyn et al., :oo:) and
technological colonisation (Goodson & Mangen, :,, p. o:o). At the core of
this is cultures in tension, the idea that the particular discourses that have
dominated the educational landscape for more than a century and a half have
been thrown into sharp relief by the rise of digital technologies. (John,
:oo,, p. ,:)
Clearly, much of the angst is evidence of a lack of thinking in respect of prin-
ciples , and . In the future, if we are to avoid this tension between music education
and our use of technology within it, it will be important to find ways to ensure
that potentially negative aspects of technological use are minimized, and to ensure
that our critical thinking about the purposes and function for music education
is kept under constant review. One of the ways that John suggests we can utilize
to avoid music education retracting and consolidating within itself is to explore
the use of a metaphor to help build bridges between music, technology, and other
subject cultures. His metaphor of trading zones helpfully examines what he calls
the borderlands between subjects and technology within which certain types of
transactions can take place. Using Galisons anthropological work as a starting
point (Galison, :,), John explores the various subject subcultures within physics,
analyzing the various trading that takes place between theoreticians, experimen-
talists, and engineers. He concludes:
Exchanges between sub-cultures can be compared to the incomplete and partial
relations which are established when different tribes come together for trading
purposes. Each tribe can bring things to the trading space and take things
away; even sacred objects can be offered up and exchanged. This trading process
also gives rise to new contact languages which are locally understood and
co-ordinated. (John, :oo,, pp. 8,8o)
John suggests that the use of this trading zone metaphor can help us under-
stand more fully the transitory and evolving relationship between a subject culture
and the technologies that are brought to bear on it. The boundary between music
education and technology becomes permeable in such a model, with notions of
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io ,o:
success depending on the perceived value associated with the presented ideas, and
the way the participants act on these and understand them. John is anticipating an
evolutionary space, one in which the every element becomes interdependent:
Transaction spaces are evolutionary where the affordances and constraints of
the situation, the tools, and the setting can facilitate further interaction as well
as limit it. To occupy a trading zone does not mean abandoning ones sacred
disciplinary home nor allowing the profane to dominate the exchange;
rather it respects subtle negotiation and accommodation (Wertsch, :oo,;
Claxton et al., :oo,) processes that encourage multiple and modified identities
to emerge over time. (John, :oo,, pp. 8,8o)
Technology-mediated exchanges or interactions of the type John is anticipat-
ing are something that music educators should aspire to develop in their work
with technology. As we will see below, at their peak they may lead to opportuni-
ties for the emergence and establishment of new musical languages and pedago-
gies, locally situated and, perhaps, of value and understood only to those directly
involved (but no less educationally valuable because of this). But this will only hap-
pen when the items or objects that are being exchanged are of value. It is worth
pausing and pondering what the sacred objects of music education are. Are we
prepared to offer them up within such an exchange and allow them to be negoti-
ated with or compromised? Looking around educational initiatives today, there are
plenty of examples of low-value (profane) exchanges being done in the transac-
tional space we inhabit. These are characterized by pieces of curriculum develop-
ment that merge music down to its lowest common denominator, underplaying
the well-established strengths of its subject culture and replacing these with hast-
ily constructed and musically meaningless uses of technology which disempower
teachers and cut short the opportunities for their students learning. In contrast,
high-value exchanges will result in meaningful developments in music education
that center on attributes that underpin ongoing teacher development. As Johns
conclusions assert:
If this agenda is to materialise then schools and subjects need time to adjust to
using ICT, to explore its possibilities and to engage with its affordances as well
as understanding its constraints. Additionally, certain conditions need to be
prevalent if the further blending of technology and pedagogy within subjects is
to flourish. These conditions are dependent on a number of characteristics, all
of which, according to Eraut (:ooo), are regarded as fundamental to the creation
of a suitable organisational microclimate. They include:
A blame free culture;
Learning from experiencespositive and negativeat both group and individual
levels;
Trying to make full use of the various knowledge resources held by members;
Encouraging talk about learning;
Locating and using relevant knowledge from outside the group;
Enhancing and extending understandings and capabilities of both the group as a
whole and its individual members. (John, :oo,, pp. 88,)
,oi 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
Please note this emphasis on collaboration. We will be coming back to this
later in the chapter.
Dvvv:ov:No n Nvw LnNocnov ov Mcs:c
Ears become wired
And minds become strong because
Youre speaking the language,
Te language of music,
Te door is now open
To learn how to speak.
Youngs poem (:oo,), built as it is around key terms and phrases from the
United Kingdoms National Curriculum for Music document, is, in itself, a
reminder that creativity can be inspired in the strangest of places. Within future,
transactional spaces, one hope is that music educators will be able to facilitate and
develop a new language of music that, whilst respecting and acknowledging the
subject culture that underpins it, is inspired by the greater degree of access and
equality of opportunities that new technologies can bring. Alex, a sound designer
from south Manchester, first alerted me to this new, technologically inspired musi-
cal language (Savage, :oo,b). At the time I had just completed my own Ph.D. stud-
ies and had embarked on my first postdoctoral piece of research into the practice
and pedagogy of songwriting. I met Alex and interviewed him at his studio, in the
basement of his house under the shadow of Old Trafford, the Manchester United
Football Clubs stadium.
:
Interviewing Alex was a life-changing moment. Through
his use of technology, he had not just opened the door but blasted it off its hinges
and learnt how to speak with a musical fluency and passion that was peculiarly
infectious. Here was someone whose music education was the exact opposite of
mine; no formal qualifications, no instrumental or conservatoire training; no
advancedlevel musical studies. Yet his breadth of musical knowledge and experi-
ence put my own to shame; his compositional and improvisational abilities were
outstanding; his ability to analyze, reflect on, and communicate his musical inten-
tions were breath-taking. What had facilitated these skills in him? What was his
source of inspiration? The short answer was music:
Music ishow can I describe it, its so many thingsit really has saved me
from a life thatits hard to explain. I grew up on an estate in Edinburgh and I
used to get in quite a lot of trouble. Music saved me from a path that I could see
leading to destruction and for that Im very grateful. So I tend to treat music as
a very good friend. Its something thats helped me to communicate with people,
to express myself. Its a language that you can relate to people from different
nations. It transcends limitations. (Alex, in interview; Savage, :oo,b)
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io ,o,
It was interesting that Alex did not respond to this question with the answer
technology. Technology, for Alex, was the tool, a powerful, facilitating tool that
allowed him access to the world of music in a way that other tools had prevented.
At the time of my initial meetings with Alex, much of his musical language was,
in Johns terms, locally understood and co-ordinated (John, :oo,, p. 8o).
However, in the intervening years, Alex has worked hard on his musical lan-
guage and has become a leading international sound designer. It has allowed him
to transcend the limitations of his early educational and musical experiences.
Now, Alex is a successful, professional composer and sound designer in a highly
competitive commercial market. He speaks an articulate musical language that,
importantly, is his own, authentic style (forged through the use of his technologi-
cal tools).
Music was the key for Alex. But technology played its part, too. As we will see
below, ensuring that these two elements remain fused together in an appropriately
balanced relationship will be key to ensuring that more young people become pas-
sionate about their own musical language.
Rv:ocn1:No Mcs:cn: KNow:vuov, Sx:::s,
nNu UNuvns1nNu:No
In preparing for this chapter, I was reflecting on my conversations with Alex. A
recurring theme was the way in which technology had allowed him to access the
processes of musical performance, composition, and improvisation in new ways.
Technology had facilitated an approach to the development of musical knowledge,
skills, and understanding but in ways that did not depend on traditional musical
assumptions, language, or pedagogies. They had been relocated in his mind. He
had approached and engaged with them from a different direction. One of the out-
comes of this process was that Alex talked about his music in a language quite dif-
ferent from my own. It was characterized by visual metaphors, by analogies drawn
from different art forms (including contemporary cinema and dance) as well as
anthropological studies.
Johns anthropological approach to the establishment of new languages within
trading zones (John, :oo,, p.8o) is an interesting metaphor through which one
could analyze Alexs musical education. The language discourse of music tech-
nology is, in itself, highly metaphorical and makes connections across a range of
trading zones. As an example, an analysis of language within a typical piece of
sequencing software will uncover terminology such as cut, copy, and paste (all
of which are found within word processing and video editing software). More
widely, metaphorical links between music and art have a long history and have
underpinned many cultural movements (Maur, :). Alexs inquisitive mind had
,o 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
led him to make all kinds of interesting connections of this type. Many of these
became inspirations for his compositional work.
Alexs work and Johns metaphor lead me to consider to what extent music
technology should be a distinct area of study. In many curriculum frameworks
within the United Kingdom, students get the opportunity to study either music
ormusic technology. Both areas are underpinned by identifiably discrete, yet
artificial, sets of assumptions about the knowledge, skills, and understanding that
are important. Personally, I am worried by this degree of separation. For some, it
seems to imply an upper and lower tier of musical engagement and perhaps even
a degree of snobbery. This is very subtle and often hard to notice. But I think it
sounds something like this:
Interviewer: Tell me about your use of music technology in the
department . . .
Teacher :: We have a range of technology for students who struggle to
play a musical instrument. It is about providing them with an
opportunity to play and compose music.
Interviewer: What about those students who play a musical instrument?
Teacher :: Why would they want to use technology? Tey can play already.
Or this:
Interviewer: How do you decide who gets to study for a GCSE
,
in Music?
Teacher :: Te students can choose to do it.
Interviewer: Is that it? Are there any conditions?
Teacher :: Not really. As long as they can play an instrument to a basic level
Im happy to let them do it.
Interviewer: What do you mean by a basic level?
Teacher :: About Grade ,
by the time they get to the end of Year ::. Tats

the standard the exam board sets.
Interviewer: Really? What about music technology? Can they use that
instead?
Teacher :: No, thats not really the same is it? Tey can use that as well but
perhaps it is better covered in other courses we run.
(Both interviews were conducted by the author as part of a research
and development project funded by the Training & Development
Agency; reported in Savage, :oo,).
To my mind, there should be no distinction between music and music technol-
ogy as areas of knowledge and practice. Future approaches to music education with
technology need to be placed firmly alongside traditional music studies. There is
no difference. Having established this, musical studies need to be placed more
firmly within a cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning. This is not
about watering down a subject culture through bland and mediocre curriculum
collaborations. It is about individual teachers developing powerful, cross-curricu-
lar pedagogies that are outward looking, underpinning by a centrifugal perspective
(Savage, :o:oc). It will see individual teachers wanting to maximize the opportuni-
ties for contextualizing musical learning within a broader framework of teaching
and learning, and responding positively to the new affordances of technological
tools in ways that enhance, enrich, and extend traditional approaches within their
subject culture. This moves us on to my final point.
Fnc:::1n1:No Euccn1:oNn: Co::nnonn1:oNs
From this powerful base, individual teachers can engage in meaningful collabora-
tions with teachers within their subject cultures and, importantly, those outside.
One of the key future challenges facing educational communities will be the cre-
ation of opportunities for teachers to debate and discuss the educational purposes
for, and philosophy underpinning, new technological approaches to teaching and
learning. Teachers need to have a meaningful say in this ongoing debate, challeng-
ing and critiquing ideas so that the future shape of curriculum initiatives have a
greater degree of shared ownership and, it is hoped, a wider impact. Facer calls this
a curriculum for networked learning and defines it as enabling individuals to
learn to work effectively within social networks for educational, social and civic
purposes and to develop strategies to establish and mobilise social networks for
their own purposes (:oo, p. ,).
For teachers and learners the degree of personalization within such a network
is significant and should allow for the development of powerful processes for the
development of subject knowledge and curriculum development. It will also facili-
tate the cross-subject exchanges or transactions that we have been discussing. From
the perspective of the learner (and this would include teachers as well as students),
such a curriculum might comprise of opportunities for:
Learning and working within meaningful sociotechnical networks not
wholly within single educational institutions
Being assessed in interaction with tools, resources, and collaborators
Developing capacities to manage information and intellectual property,
building reputation and trust, developing experience of working remotely
and in mediated environments
Creating new, personalized learning networks
Reflecting on how learning is connected with other areas of personal,
social, and working lives,as well asmanaging and negotiating these
relationships
Exploring the human-machine relationships involved in sociotechnical
networks (Facer, :oo, p. ,)
,oo 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
The days of the individual teacher, teaching their individual subject in their
own classroom, with the door closed to the majority of others outside, are clearly
numbered. Key technological developments have already facilitated a significant
shift in individual subject cultures, curriculum design, and delivery. The role of
technology within teaching and learning is powerful. Allying technology to the
promotion of a cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning makes sense
in many ways, not least in the educational benefits that it brings to students and
teachers and the way that it reflects the wider use of technology outside the world
of education. Networking and collaborative approaches are a key way forward.
CoNc:cs:oN
Change is now a constant condition in our education system, reflecting changes in
the wider world. This has implications for teacher identity and role. What sort of
teacher development is needed in order to keep pace with such change? We have
to ask ourselves whether we want a mere retooling of teacher competencies for
specific purposes, or an approach that supports a renaissance in teacher develop-
ment for an uncertain future. This is not about making an industrial process more
efficient; rather, it is about enabling cultural change in the profession (Futurelab,
:ooo, p. ,).
What will the future of music education look like? How will the use of tech-
nology shape and mediate the educational processes that underpin it? It would
be a bold writer who would predict, with any certainty, the changes and techno-
logical developments that our educational futures will contain. This chapter has
not focused on this type of guesswork (educated or otherwise). But some things
seem certain. Technological change continues to move at a fast pace. Earlier in the
chapter we considered the Beyond Current Horizons research project. We looked
together at some of the key principles that informed the research, arguing that
they were good foundations for our work in re-imagining the use of technology
within music education. I argued that future implementations of technology in
music education require us to make continued challenges to the assumptions of
music education, whether they are related to the philosophy or practice of music
education. Technological determinism should be avoided at all costs. Future peda-
gogies of music education with technology need to connect to the broader aims
and responsibilities of education generally and musically. Similarly, technologi-
cal rhetoric is unhelpful and creates divisions in educational approaches that we
should be seeking to heal.
Beyond Current Horizons is supported by a set of online resources (DCSF &
Futurelab, :oo). A central plank in these is the modeling of various educational
scenarios. These scenarios are stories of three different possible futures, imagin-
ing how the world could look after :o:,, in order to challenge assumptions and
stimulate thinking about the present (DCSF & Futurelab, :oo). The scenarios
are structured around three different, potential worlds. Each of these worlds has
a different set of social values. These include increasingly individualized, increas-
ingly collective, or increasingly contested approaches towards life and education.
Reading through these scenarios is a very worthwhile activity. The key questions
at the end of this chapter will help you do this and apply aspects of these scenarios
to music education.
The Futurelab report quoted above argues for a change in approach for teach-
ers professional development with technology. It acknowledges that the processes
by which teachers learn about new technologies are complicated and constricted
in various ways. But
the possibilities for real change in the system do exist. If we can bring the
technologies into situations that resonate strongly with teachers sense of
professional and moral purposes, we may yet see what might truly prove to
be a renaissance, in which teachers would employ digital technologies for
understanding, reflection, ingenuity and creativity, and, through these,
support their own learning in new ways. (Futurelab, :ooo, p. :; italics added)
The best chances of technology having a positive educational impact lie with
teachers aligning these powerful tools to their own sense of professional purpose.
One could say that there will be no technological development without teacher
development. The writers suggestion is that as teachers own learning is supported
through a more cohesive system, they will become more adept at creating interesting
opportunities for learning with and through digital technologies for their students.
The classification of natives and immigrants within the digital revolution
(Prensky, :oo:, pp. :,) is well known. Digital natives speak the digital language
of computers, video games and the Internet, whilst digital immigrants have been
fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology but always
retain, to some degree, their accent, that is, their foot in the past (Prensky, :oo:,
pp. ::). Whilst research suggested that many teachers see themselves as compe-
tent in this area (Savage, :oo,), a large number continue to struggle not just in the
development of their own skills with ICT but also in applying these within cur-
ricula contexts (Savage, :o:ob). The individualization of music education within
our schools means that there are few opportunities for the collaborative and net-
working required to initiate and sustain meaningful change. Music education with
technology, in this context, faces a continued danger of localization and colloqui-
alism. However, the broad notions of digital immigrant and digital native are too
simplistic. Studies by Bennet, Maton, and Kervin (:oo8) have shown that there
might be as much variation in technology use within the generation defined as dig-
ital natives as those that could be found between the generation of digital natives
and digital immigrants. Within music education, Salavuo has discussed similar
issues (Salavuo, :oo8). During the course of completing a recent piece of research,
I presented some of these ideas to a group of students who were completing their
course of initial teacher education. A lively discussion ensued during which one
,o8 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
student responded that he did not feel like a digital native or a digital immigrant.
He felt like a digital expat. Afterward, when questioned further, he wrote:
I go somewhere digital, stay there and never get to know the surrounding areas.
Definitely room for cyber improvement where this inexperienced little piggy is
concerned. What I dont know may injure me in schools in the upcoming weeks.
(Savage, :oo)
This highlights another obvious danger. Digital expats can find comfort in their
digital surroundings and may find it difficult to move on, too. The dangers of com-
placency are just as real for the digital native as they are for the digital immigrant.
Rvv:vc1:vv Qcvs1:oNs
It is wise to look ahead, but as Churchill asserts, it is difficult to look :.
further than you can see. What tools can you adopt to aid your ability to
see further? To what extent have the tools contained within this chapter
aided your sight?
There is a balance between looking backward and looking forward. One of :.
the chapters key assertions is that future actions need to be contextualized
within a clear understanding of wider frameworks and assumptions. To
what extent does your knowledge of present-day educational contexts and
the assumptions that underpin them prepare you for future applications of
technology within music education?
What is the imprint of technology on music education? ,.
What are the elements of musics subject culture that facilitate or constrain .
the adoption of technological tools within it? What is sacred within music
education and can technology touch this in any way?
Collaborations are powerful but difficult to sustain. To what extent can ,.
new models of collaboration within music education be facilitated? What
role can technology play in helping build new, meaningful collaborative
networks?
Having read the chapter, what are your thoughts about a possible, probable, o.
or preferred model of music education with technology in the future?
KEY SOURCES
Facer, K. (:oo). Educational, social and technological futures: A report from the beyond
current horizons programme. London: DCSF & Futurelab.
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io ,o
Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (:o:o). Te next :, years? Future scenarios and future directions
for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,:o, ,,.
John, P. (:oo,). Te Sacred and the Profane: Subject sub-culture, pedagogical practice
and teachers perceptions of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review, ,,(),
o88.
Savage, J. (:o:o). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school. London:
Routledge.
WEBSITES
Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF)& Futurelab (:oo). Beyond
current horizons. http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/ [accessed July ,, :oo].
Education Futures Timeline. http://www.educationfutures.com/resources/timeline/.
Futurelab. (:ooo). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of research and
projects. Bristol: Futurelab. Available at http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources
[accessed October :o, :oo].
Te Future of Education. http://www.futureofeducation.com/.
NOTES
:. It is also interesting to note, however, that more recent research in this area has
identified that excellence in teachers subject knowledge is one of the key attributes for
successful developments of cross-curricular teaching and learning (CIDREE, :oo,).
:. The Old Trafford ground is, rather appropriately to this context, often referred to as
the theatre of dreams.
,. The GCSE is a General Certificate in Secondary Education, normally taken by students
at the end of Year :: (age :,:o) in the UK educational system.
. Grade , refers to a particular level within the instrumental examination system run by
groups such as the Associated Boards of the Royal Schools of Music within the United
Kingdom.
REFERENCES
Apple. (:oo). http://www.apple.com/iphone/appstore/ [accessed March :o, :oo].
Bell, W. (:,). Foundations of futures studies. London: Transaction Publishers.
Bennet, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (:oo8). Te digital natives debate: A critical review of
the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, (,), ,,,,8o.
Cain, T. (:oo). Teory, technology and the music curriculum. British Journal of Music
Education ::(:), ::,:::.
,1o 1ui oxiovu u.unoox oi mUsic iuUc.1io
CIDREE. (:oo,). Cross-curricular themes in secondary education: Report of a CIDREE
collaborative project. Sint-Katelijne-Waver (Belgium), CIDREE. Available at www.
cidree.be/uploads/documentenbank/8,,o,o,oa88c8ba,cbebeofd:o.pdf
[accessed July :o, :oo].
Claxton, G., Pollard, A. & Sutherland, R. (:oo,). Fishing in the fog: Conceptualising
learning at the confuence of cultures. In R. Sutherland, G. Claxton,& A. Pollard (eds.),
Learning and teaching: Where world views meet (pp. ::,). London: Trentham Books.
Cooper, B. (:8,). On explaining change in school subjects. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, (,), :o,:::.
DCSF & Futurelab. (:oo). Beyond current horizons. http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.
org.uk/ [last accessed :/,/o].
Draper, P. (:oo8). Music two-point-zero: Music, technology and digital independence.
Journal of Music, Technology and Education, :(:,), :,,:,:.
Facer, K. (:oo). Educational, social and technological futures: A report from the beyond
current horizons programme. London: DCSF & Futurelab.
Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (:o:o). Te next :, years? Future scenarios and future directions
for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, :o, ,,.
Federation of Music Services (FMS). (:o:o). Wow, its music next. Full report available from
http://www.thefms.org/ [last accessed :/:/:o].
Fitzsimmons, C. (:oo, March :,). Government outlines digital rights agency proposal.
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/:oo/mar/:,/uk-government-outlines-
digital-rights-agency [accessed March :o, :oo].
Futurelab. (:ooo). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of research and
projects. Bristol: Futurelab. Available at http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources
[accessed October :o, :oo].
Galison, P. (:,). Image and logic: Te material culture of micro-physics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Goodson, I. F., & Mangen, J. M. (:8). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom
computers. In I. F. Goodson (ed.), Subject knowledge: Readings for the study of school
subjects (pp. :o,:::). London: Falmer Press.
Graham, F. (:oo). Disability no barrier to gaming. BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/:/hi/
technology/,,,,,o.stm [last accessed :o/,/o].
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (:oo,). Confronting
the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the ::stcentury. An
occasional paper on digital media and learning. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
Jephcote, M., & Davies, B. (:oo,). School subjects, subject communities and curriculum
change: Te social construction of economics in the school curriculum. Cambridge
Journal of Education,,(:), :o,::,.
John, P. (:oo,). Te sacred and the profane: Subject sub-culture, pedagogical practice and
teachers perceptions of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review ,,(), o88.
Maur, K. (:). Te sound of painting: Music in modern art. London & New York: Prestel.
Ofsted. (:oo). Making more of music. London: Ofsted. Available at http://www.ofsted.
gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-
by-type/Tematic-reports/Making-more-of-music-an-evaluation-of-music-in-
schools-:oo,o8.
Prensky, M. (:oo:). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, NCB University
Press, (,), :o.
QCA. (:oo,). Te national curriculum: Statutory requirements for key stages , and .
London: QCA.
uvivic iovw.vu 1icuoiocvs imvvi1 o mUsic iuUc.1io ,::
Reimer, B. (:). Is musical performance worth saving? Arts Education Policy
Review,,(,), :::.
Salavuo, M. (:oo8). Are university students digital natives? http://weblog.siba.f/
msalavuo/:oo8/o/::/are-university-students-digital-natives/ [accessed March :o,
:oo].
Savage, J. (:o:oa). New report on the benefts of instrumental learning. http://jsavage.org.
uk/?p=,, [accessed February :, :o:o].
Savage, J. (:o:ob). A survey of ICT usage across English secondary schools. Music
Education Research,::(:), ,o:.
Savage, J. (:o:oc). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school. London:
Routledge.
Savage, J. (:oo). Are you a digital native? http://jsavage.org.uk/?p=:o:?more-:o:
[accessed March :o, :oo].
Savage, J. (:oo,). Reconstructing music education through ICT. Research in Education, ,8,
o,,,.
Savage, J. (:oo,a). Is musical performance worth saving? http://www.music-ite.org.uk/fles/
articles/musical-performance.pdf [accessed February :, :o:o].
Savage, J. (:oo,b). Information communications technologies as a tool for re-imagining
music education in the ::st century. International Journal of Education & the Arts,
o(:). http://ijea.asu.edu/von:/.
Savage, J. (:oo). Working towards a theory for music technologies in the classroom: How
students engage with and organise sounds with new technologies. British Journal of
Music Education, ::(:), :o,:8o.
Somekh, B. (:oo,). Pedagogy and learning with ICT. London: Routledge.
Spear, M., Gould, K., & Lee, B. (:ooo). Who would be a teacher? A review of factors
motivating and demotivating prospective and practising teachers. Slough, UK: NFER.
Stenhouse, L. (:8o). Curriculum research and development in action. London: Heinemann
Educational.
Sutherland, R., & John, P. (:oo,). Afordance, opportunity and the pedagogical
implications of ICT. Educational Review, ,,(), o,:,.
University of Bristol (:o:oa). InterActive Education Project: Subject cultures. http://www.
interactiveeducation.ac.uk/sub_cult.htm [accessed January 8, :o:o].
University of Bristol (:o:ob). InterActive Education Project: Learning. http://www.
interactiveeducation.ac.uk/learning.htm [accessed January 8, :o:o].
Van Manen, M. (:,,). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum
Inquiry, o(,), :o,::8.
Wertsch, J. (:oo,). Dimensions of culture-clash. In R. Sutherland, G. Claxton, & A.
Pollard (eds.), Learning and teaching: Where world views meet (pp. :,,:8:). London:
Trentham Books.
Young, M. (:oo,). Te language of music. On Yamaha Kemble & Virtual Learning
Environments Foundation Found Sound (CD-ROM). www.foundsound.org [accessed
January ,, :oo,].

Savage Music Technology 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savage Music Technology 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

by the time they get to the end of Year ::. Tats

You might also like